Top Comments
All Comments (103)
-
wrong!
-
There's a reason why this very lay person who cannot create anyting, therefore he's paid to watch movies not films and when he sees a film is shocked.
-
This guy us just plain stupid. He has no idea what he's talking about. The film is a masterpiece.Like it or not, making or not making sense. I cant believe this guy even calls himself a critic.
-
nice try, but no. America actually has to SEE this for it to have any effect.
-
yeah, that was an interesting criticism. who the fuck saw this and thought 'ha! this thing is going to BOMB at the local AMC 20!'??
-
because that is the power of cinema! :)
-
film is a realistic medium? What about Melies, Fellini, Bergman's Persona? In fact what about art cinema as a whole - which has many variations of realism and symbolism, poetic and documentary. How did you get your job? It's bewildering to me. Don't review a film you don't understand to get yourself publicity when you clearly should stick to reviewing stuff that you understand and can be bothered to analyse adequately.
-
how many generalisations can one man make? and newsflash...he doesn't give two hoots about being commercially successful. do some research, do some analysis, that was a terrible 'review'
-
go see Twilight you peace of shit critic!'
why the heck do americans come at Cannes??
-
yeah man, i don't know what this critic is talking about.... anti christ was terrific comedy fair.
i would definitely recommend this film for anybody who wants to relax and have a good laugh or two.****
The Hollywood Reporter's "film critic" wants us to know that, "film is a realistic medium". Thanks so much!
It's hard to imagine a more inaccurate, less idiotic, perspective on cinema.
We might as well be watching such fascinating film subjects as trains arriving in stations, gentlemen riding bicycles, or ladies trying on hats.
Would this "critic" would care to explain what nearly every great filmmaker from Griffith to Kubrick to Von Trier ought really to have been doing with their talent?
kellnerdesign 2 years ago 9
He notes audience were laughing in moments they shouldnt..
when i saw it in the movie house yes people were laughing... however they were in the most challenging moments of the film... this laughter is good, its uncomftable laughter... its the laughter one deals with when face front with deeper unnervings!
this critic should open his perspective a little further and see how rich with symbolism the movie is...
Film does not and should not just be only a realistic medium...
eggyumyum 2 years ago 8